James Patrick Holding believes himself guilty of libel

As the reader will likely be aware, I sued internet apologist James Patrick Holding in 2015-2016, in part, because of an "Internet Predator Alert" ('IPA') he posted to his website wherein he falsely alleged that I was a pedophile, guilty of crimes I never committed, etc, etc.

Mr. Holding, the obstinate son of bitch that he is, left that IPA publicly accessible on his website for about a month after he received the summons and complaint (lawsuit) in the mail.

But Mr. Holding took down that IPA shortly after he received my second set of discovery requests while that lawsuit was still pending.

Why?

If he thought the IPA to be perfectly truthful in all that it says, and if he knew at the time, as he says he did, that truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel, then why did this boisterous prick, so intent on ruining my reputation as much as possible, take down that IPA?

The obvious answer is that he genuinely feared one or more facts therein were false and actionably libelous, but don't expect the obvious truth to be admitted by him.

Unfortunately, Holding is an obstinate scumbag, and would rather die than admit that yes, he fucked up.  Sort of like the dog who keeps coming back to the electrified garbage can despite the fact that the last time he did, he lost part of his nose in the flash.  Sinful Pride is Holding's middle name.

Holding also cannot say he had an attack of morality and wanted to give me a break; a) that would contradict the fact that he currently produces videos that still libel me and mock the fact that I got injured in a bus accident, conclusively establishing that the level of viciousness in his mind makes no room for feeling sorry about his most vocal critics; b) the fact that he didn't take down the IPA until after my second set of discovery requests, well into the litigation, more likely means he didn't realize how far in the toilet his IPA put him until he received those second sets of discovery requests (i.e., he would have left up the IPA unless persuaded that it really did justify a libel lawsuit against him); 3) Holding initially replaced the IPA with a short message  that said simply:

                                                    

That is, at the time Holding took down the IPA, he did not intend to leave it down, which would be consistent with a theory that he had an attack of morality and wanted to give me a break.  His assurance to the reader that the IPA would be "returning soon" can only imply that his attitude at the time of removing it, was that it was going to be re-posted at some point in the near future.  Apparently then, it was through some type of coercion from higher authorities, likely the attorney he hired to defend hin, that he reluctantly took down the IPA.

In other words, the most plausible or likely explanation for the circumstances under which Holding removed the IPA is that he genuinely feared himself liable for civil damages in the libel-lawsuit that was then-pending.

So you might wish to ask Holding whether Jesus would approve of Christians, who are genuinely guilty of violating Romans 13, taking advantage of technicalities to escape their morally deserved punishment. If you don't morally approve of the justice system when a technical flaw in the warrant requires the Court free a genuinely guilty pedophile, what makes you think employing technicalities to escape justice in other contexts is any more virtuous? 

But I'd have to be pretty stupid to assume that the threat of disagreement from Jesus would have the slightest effect on an atheist who pretends to be a Christian merely to give himself opportunity and excuse to vent his childish pathological need to ruin the lives of other people and entertain his equally pathological supporters in the process.